Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: February 28, 1994 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item # C. 1 . b <br /> SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT <br /> ARTICLE 6.23.8 - Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities <br /> DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC BEARING _X—Yes No <br /> ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis <br /> Extension 2583 <br /> Proposed Amendment <br /> OWASA Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS: <br /> OWASA Resolution Hillsborough - 732-8181 <br /> Durham - 688-7331 <br /> Mebane - 227-2031 <br /> Chapel Hill - 967-9251 <br /> PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the <br /> Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of septic easements as <br /> needed in all protected watersheds except the University <br /> Lake Watersheds. <br /> BACKGROUND: On December 21, 1993, the Board of Commissioners adopted <br /> amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Zoning <br /> Atlas, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Plan to <br /> implement mandated watershed protection standards and to <br /> extend zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. <br /> Those amendments included prohibition of off-site septic <br /> easements (except for repair area) in all protected <br /> watersheds. Prior to adoption of the amendments on <br /> December 21, the prohibition of septic easements applied <br /> only in the University Lake Watershed. <br /> There was little discussion of septic easements at the <br /> Commissioner's meetings after the August public hearing, . <br /> however, Zoning Ordinance amendments adopted on December <br /> 21, 1993, included the prohibition of septic easements in <br /> all watersheds. <br /> After receiving comments from citizens after the adoption <br /> of the amendments the Chair of the Board of Commissioners <br /> requested that the Planning Staff present an amendment for <br /> public hearing in February 1994 so that this specific <br /> provision can be revisited. <br /> Given the lack of specific discussion, and the magnitude <br />